Images of leaders talking in person speak to the enduring value of the decades-old organization.STEFAN ROUSSEAU/AFP/Getty Images
Martha Hall Findlay is the director of the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy. John Kirton is the director of the G7 Research Group based at the University of Toronto.
The official group photos from the G7 summit at Kananaskis, Alta., are striking, set against the beautiful backdrop of the Rocky Mountains. But given the fractious lead-up to the summit among the long-time allies in the Group of Seven industrialized countries, the images of the leaders talking in person were the most compelling, and they speak to the enduring value of the 50-year-old organization.
If the COVID-19 pandemic taught us anything, it is that nothing matches the value of being in person and able to look each other in the eye when there’s a need to solve complex problems or engage in uncomfortable but important conversations. Despite the attention paid to communiqués and statements, it’s that small-group dynamic and personal interaction that separates the G7 from the United Nations or even the G20, where leaders arrive and deliver speeches written by bureaucrats and diplomats.
That said, by the end of the summit, there were indeed seven communiqués, with text agreed by all members, including Donald Trump. These joint statements covered items that were already on the agenda – artificial intelligence, quantum computing, transnational repression, wildfires, migration and critical minerals – as well as the Israel-Iran conflict, which started on the eve of the summit. Together, these communiqués contained 130 collective, precise, future-oriented, and politically obligatory commitments. The Chair’s Summary, with another 18 commitments, included passages that all G7 leaders had agreed to, including its text on Ukraine. Those issues are important, and provided new Prime Minister Mark Carney his first big chance to advance his vision of Canada’s leadership on a global stage.
What the G7 statements released by world leaders say and don’t say
For weeks, the expectations leading up to Kananaskis were about how to address the punishing tariffs imposed by the United States on goods from other G7 members, without drawing the ire of Mr. Trump. Of course, the President’s volatility kept everyone on edge. But with the Israel-Iran conflict taking centre stage, he returned to Washington after the first day of the summit with few of the fireworks that had been predicted. Indeed, he came wearing a lapel pin showing he wanted the United States and Canada to work together, and he acted that way throughout. At his bilateral meeting with Mr. Carney, he concluded by saying that the Prime Minister’s proposed complex formula for ending their trade dispute was a good one, which he would consider.
The second day built on and broadened this progress, as the remaining G7 leaders met with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Led by Mr. Carney’s multibillion-dollar donation to Ukraine, G7 leaders promised more support for Ukraine and more sanctions on Russia. Then they met with their carefully selected guests – leaders from non-G7 democracies – to focus on energy security. Many of these countries were included by name in the G7’s communiqués.
Canada announces $4.3-billion in new Ukraine aid and sanctions on Russia’s ‘shadow fleet’
Key to the value of the G7 are the discussions themselves, the relationships being developed and the many important side discussions. That table included some G7 veterans: Mr. Trump, French President Emmanuel Macron, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Mr. Carney, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Japanese Prime Minister Ishiba Shigeru, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and EU Council President António Costa were all newcomers.
Still, Mr. Carney is no rookie. He knows many of these leaders from his previous roles on the international stage, and they know him. He was well positioned to reinforce his government’s recognition that Canada’s approach to foreign relations must be based on our own economic and security interests, and that a strong Canada is key to our being able to contribute and participate effectively in global affairs – a welcome departure from lecturing others about Canadian “values.” From energy to agriculture to critical minerals, Canada needs to establish itself as a secure source of supply for likeminded countries supporting an open, rules-based trading order.
Finding solutions to today’s challenges may require countries and – sometimes different configurations of likeminded countries – to work together in new ways. That is why these individual relationships are so important.
At a conference that our organizations hosted in Calgary last week, former prime ministers Jean Chrétien and Joe Clark were adamant that dialogue is the key path to progress. And so, in the future, when new challenges emerge (along with opportunities, hopefully), a legacy of Kananaskis will be these leaders’ ability to pick up the phone or meet in person to discuss the best path forward to global stability and prosperity.